Re:How thermometer and satellite data is adjusted and why it...
by mannykannot on Wednesday November 16, 2016 @09:20AM
(#12966968)
This is an excellent analysis of a bogus argument, and demonstrates the proper way to deal with its ilk. When an 'argument' is constructed from innuendo, when it nominally concedes its failings where they butt against inconvenient truths, but then continues as if it had not, then there is little point in arguing against it with the facts - that is how you conduct a dialog with people who are honest in their opinions. Instead, the best response to this sort of thing is to expose the inconsistent, fallacious and possibly deceitful form of the argument itself.
This comment is complete nonsense.
Or rather, it is the perfect example of the type of comment that is impossible to argue against because it is specifically designed to be never wrong.
Instead of trying to argue (for example) that one shouldn't adjust for things like changing the time temperature is measured from the morning to the afternoon, the argument is that "there is an incentive".
It's clearly useless to argue against this. One could make the point that there is always large amounts of funding available for anyone to go against the climate change consensus, but then we'd end up arguing details of funding models etc which would (in the main) be completely ignored.
You'll note that there is the concession But this doesn't mean any specific correction is based on "fabricated" research. It's probably perfectly valid. - but you'll also note that the author goes on arguing motivation points, and saying things like "it requires statistical wizardry" and questioning ice core data etc.
This is such an attractive technique for arguing on forums. It's just about impossible to stop, and much more damaging than "fake news" IMHO.